Blogging Against Torture

[catsittingstill]

To tell you the truth, I wasn't going to pay much attention to this--until I read a contrasting view that got my dander up, and now I believe I have something to say.

I think my first real introduction to torture was when I saw an old WWII movie on TV,. The fleeing good guys, one of whom was injured and being carried by the others, got caught by the Nazis, and when the good guys wouldn't answer questions, one of the Nazis deliberately struck the injured guy's broken leg with a rifle butt. I heard the injured guy catch his breath in pain and fled the room. I remember feeling helpless and sick.

I like to think it was just that I wanted to understand, but I went through a stage when I was fascinated by torture. I got every book I could find on it out of the library, and I read them all, with sick fascination, wanting to turn away but not quite able to put the books down. Most of them, naturally, were about the Inquisition--it being safely far back in history I guess, though I seem to recall there were some on Russian gulags too...

So I think I have something to say on the matter, having some idea of what "stress position" can mean, for instance (the Inquisition had this method of torture where they tied your hands behind your back and then strung you up from the ceiling by them, dislocating both shoulders. Then they left you to hang there for hours. That's an example of stress position.). So when someone says "stress position" it might be a good idea to get more information. Or not, if you have a delicate stomach.

1) Terrorists torture innocent people; we're only doing it to bad guys.
It would be nice to think that, wouldn't it? I'd like to believe that.

But, in Abu Ghraib, by the US Army's own estimate, somewhere between 50% and 90% of the inmates were innocent--had been picked up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those terrified bound guys, trying to cringe their dangling genitals away from snarling attack dogs? How do you know they all came from the 50% or 20% or 10% who were guilty? The Army didn't know who was guilty, or they'd have saved time and money by turning the innocent ones loose.

The Army almost certainly made mistakes then. So what makes you think that the Army, or the CIA, or whoever's doing the torturing this time, never makes a mistake?

Which means we're torturing innocent people too.

2) It gets us vital information that saves lives.
Well, we have an extensive long-running experiment on that, which gives us a lot of data to look at. The Inquisition. Let's see what kind of vital information torture gathered then:

People confessed to turning into cats. Do you believe a human being can turn into a cat? If you don't--that was bad information.

People confessed to turning into hares. Do you believe a person can turn into a hare? If you don't, that was bad information.

People confessed to flying through the air on broomsticks. Do you believe a person can fly on a broomstick? If you don't, that was bad information.

People confessed to kissing the Devil's buttocks. Do you believe there is a physical Devil, with physical buttocks, who can be summoned for the pleasure of having them kissed by small gatherings of people? If you don't, that was bad information.

So here we have historical data on a widely applied torture program , which turned up very little that could even be arguably good information.

Torture doesn't get you information; it gets you whatever you stop the pain to listen to. Using less pain (if they really are) may mean that fewer people break. It doesn't mean you get correct information--because the whole point of doing it is that you don't know what the answer really is so you don't necessarily stop for correct information. And while you can try to keep secret from your victim what you really want to hear, in the hope that he'll spill the truth, not having anything more effective to offer, what you get is a situation in which a victim with any talent for Clever Hansing* will develop that talent to the full.

I will point out that we went to war in Iraq in part over an alleged nuclear weapons development program that turned out to be false. And guess what?--that bad information was gotten when the Egyptian government tortured some guy. Oops.

TV is fantasy.  In the real world, torture doesn't work.  Sure, sometimes your victim will tell the truth.  But how are you going to tell that from all the times your victim made up fantasies to go five minutes more without being beaten again?  A method that gives you the right answers part of the time, without any way to tell which part, might as well be the Mystic 8 Ball.

3) A lot of it is things like sleep deprivation and solitary confinement and simulated drowning, and stress positions, not really torture.

I've never had anyone deliberately try to keep me from sleeping for a week, or a month, so I can't speak from experience. The people who study torture class sleep deprivation as torture (unless they work for the Bush administration, but you can imagine how seriously I take that), so I do too.

And the books about Russian gulags had a little information on the process of psychological destruction that takes place in solitary confinement. Humans are social animals; deprive us of human contact and we go mad. Seriously, I'm talking paranoia and hallucinations and voices out of nowhere mad. It's not like putting a kid in time out, and I wish people wouldn't try to trivialize it like that.

Waterboarding is not simulated drowning. It's controlled drowning. The victim really is forced to inhale water--it's just done in such a way that you can do it again and again and again, instead of only once.

See the introduction about on favored "stress position" employed in the past.

4) They would do it to us.
Um. The fact that they do it makes them the bad guys. They are evil criminals because they do it. We shouldn't be evil criminals; we should be the good guys. Good guys don't torture. Why do I even have to explain this? What about this is naive?

5) People should be up in arms about terrorists using torture, not about our government using torture.
What on earth makes you think I have nothing against terrorists using torture? Terrorists are evil criminals in part because they torture. Of course I want the evil criminals caught and of course I despise what they do. But my own government is turning into evil criminals--naturally putting a stop to that is the first order of business.

So here are my objections to torture.
1) It's evil
2) it's evilness is compounded by the fact that it is frequently done to innocent people.
3) And it doesn't even work.

-----------------------------------------------

*Clever Hans was a horse that could "add." It turned out that what he was really doing was tapping his hoof until his trainer relaxed because he'd reached the right answer. I'm using "Clever Hansing" to mean "ramble until your torturer's body language says he's pleased, then expand on that subject"



If you want to check out an opposing point of view, there is one here.  Or a point of view more aligned with mine is here.  If you feel moved to comment on any of these, try to remember that though this issue stirs strong feelings, we might like to stay friends.

Comments

[mdlbear]

Well said, Cat! Thank you.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'm pleased that you think it well done, and gratified to hear that I am not alone in my beliefs.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

Everything you said.

I have a horrible suspicion that, in Guantanamo, the "enhanced interrogation techniques" are being used in order to contrive a justification for imprisoning those poor bastards for all this time. If they can wring a confession out of some guy who's only crime was being wherever the U.S. Army was doing a mop-up operation, then they can say, "See! We were right to keep him under lock and key!" It's the same reason the prisoners haven't been released: releasing them would be an admission there was no reason to put them through the ordeal of years-long imprisonment in the first place.

It's definitely the Inquisition mindset: If you're accused, you must be guilty. And we must make you admit your guilt.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I have the same horrible suspicion about Guantanamo.

Someone said once "You cannot prove innocence by torture. Only guilt, or stamina." I don't know where I read it, but it's appalling that it should apply to our time and place.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

the whole point of doing it is that you don't know what the answer really is

I thought the whole point of doing it was that you knew the answer you wanted, and you did it till you got it. But perhaps I am jaded and cynical.

Anyway, I am with you at least as much as you're with me. :)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

But see, I'm innocent and naive, so I figure, if you already have the information, you wouldn't be torturing people to get it.

Though I have to concede that the Inquisition was very much run along the lines you describe.

[maiac.livejournal.com]

During the Inquisition, a confession wasn't valid unless it was extracted under torture. The "reasoning" was that a prisoner would confess to anything in order avoid the torture, so a torture-free confession might be a lie.

Interesting logic from people who don't seem to have considered that someone being tortured would say anything so the torture would stop.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Bleach. I had forgotten that.

The "reasoning" was that a prisoner would confess to anything in order avoid the torture, so a torture-free confession might be a lie.

Ah, I see--before the torture they'd be terrified and wouldn't confess to anything, but once the torture started they'd realize it wasn't so bad, and they'd only confess if they were guilty. All is now made clear.

Some people have really weird minds.

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Because this is something I feel very strongly about indeed, I wouldn't be able to hold my tongue in the linked-to LJ. Suffice it to say, as you've probably gathered from my own post in Tom's thread, I'm with you.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I went back to that one and commented again; it may have been a mistake. I softened what I had to say about three times and it may *still* be too confrontational.

[janeg.livejournal.com]

You have stated the case very well, and your views are MUCH closer to my own than some I have read on LJ. Thank you for posting.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

You are welcome. I spent some time sweating over that post; I'm pleased that you think it states the case well.

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

Thank you, Cat.

I've met too many people who join our present government in claiming the right to torture openly and proudly. Just listening to them wounds my soul.

I have now read something sane on the subject, and feel healed, just a little, just because you put it there. Thank you.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm only saying what I'm sure many of us are feeling. Sometimes it feels like there's no point in speaking up, that's all. But there is, if only to remind each other that we are not alone.

[finnkveldulfr.livejournal.com]

Good post. No argument with your point of view. Among the posts I've read (for and against torture) by following various links, you've made the most sense out of it.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm flattered. Thanks

[it-aint-easy.livejournal.com]

Hey Cat.

I agree with you on this topic. I think most of your points are very well put, too. Your response to #1 in particular seems inarguable. And #5 is one that has always driven me crazy. "Of course I think it's appalling that terrorists torture people! There's no argument there. That's criminal; find them, bring them to justice for that alone. But in the meantime, I can't fix that. What we're talking about is US torturing people. That's something I actually have some say in. And what makes it bad for them and OK for us?"

But (and I hope I can say without offending too much) I find your #2 not only unconvincing (and it's the one I was most looking forward to reading, as I've heard it said before that torture doesn't work, but never with a good explanation), but a straw man argument. Your example has little to do with the type of torture you're arguing against. You've proven that torture victims will say impossible things, if that's all the torturers want to hear, if that's the only thing that will make the torture stop. In your examples, there was no truthful avenue that would make the pain stop, so they said the crazy things that were required. The things that US torturers are asking for are facts, many of them testable. Maybe some of the victims are so well-trained or so devoted that they'll only give false info. But some might tell the truth, as that will make the pain/whatever cease. Some might lie the first time, then have to face the interrogator coming back into the room the next day saying "Well, we checked it out and you lied to us. So we're going to take it up a notch..."

I will say again that I do agree with you overall. I can imagine an "edge case" where it might be justifiable, but what's happened goes way beyond that.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I will respectfully disagree with you about #2. Yes, the things the victims said seem crazy now. And part of why I chose them as examples rather than things that don't seem crazy, like: "people confessed that their friends and children were heretics" is that now those magical contentions are considered so crazy that everyone can see they're obviously false, whereas contentions of heresy are actually possible so there's no way to know.

But they didn't seem crazy then. Or the witch hunts just wouldn't have happened; everyone would have said, "C'mon, nobody put a hex on your cow. Cows eat poisonous weeds and die sometimes; get over it." So the victims knew they were lying, (if they had enough psychological integrity left to distinguish between reality and fantasy anymore), but nobody else did.

What I've proven is that tortured people will say *false* things. My contention is that if you already know the information, there's no need to torture, so in any situation where you employ torture you're always vulnerable to being lied to. And I will point out that in addition to trained and devoted guilty individuals, you'll be dealing with some innocent ones, which you mistakenly believe to be guilty, as well. They have nothing to stop the torture with but lies; it's not like they have any truthful information.

It's true that you may be able to find out who was lying and torture them more. But a) that doesn't solve the problem of the innocent who has nothing to offer but lies and b) you'll often find out the information was bad by acting on it, and getting innocent people killed.

[dornbeast.livejournal.com]

4) They would do it to us.

My major objection to that argument:

"Why can't I smoke crack cocaine? All the cool kids are doing it."

"Why can't I torture people? All the terrorists are doing it."

[hitchkitty.livejournal.com]

Sure, maybe Our Enemies in the Woah on Terra would do it to us, but:

Yes, and this would be why they're called "the bad guys".

[meritmaat.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for this post. I was shocked if not disgusted by the many comments I read that actually thought torture to be okay in some situations. Your post gives me some hope here, really.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you liked it.

[gingicat]

smallship1 sent me when I praised his post in my list of anti-torture posts. And I agree with every word. Thank you.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thank you for reading what I had to say. I'm glad you liked it.

[annonynous.livejournal.com]

"4) They would do it to us. ... Good guys don't torture. ... What about this is naive?"

Nothing, unless you believe that being a really hard-assed pragmatist puts you at the top of the evolutionary ladder. Or maybe of the food chain, since we're talking about behavior that may be guided by intelligence but is basically feral.

I chose to comment on this particular point of yours because of the impression a recent Prickly City comic strip series made on me. It was on whether waterboarding was torture. The last cartoon of the series shows Carmen coming to the conclusion that it ain't easy to be the good guys, and Winslow saying, well, yes, otherwise we'd all be good guys.

Thank you for your clarity and detail.
Ann O.